Ahoj!
All this talk of battlecruiser made me design this ...
SMS Tiger, Grosserkreuzer, laid down 1916
Displacement:
30 006 t light; 31 504 t standard; 33 251 t normal; 34 649 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
740,00 ft / 740,00 ft x 102,00 ft x 28,50 ft (normal load)
225,55 m / 225,55 m x 31,09 m x 8,69 m
Armament:
6 - 13,50" / 343 mm guns (3x2 guns), 1 500,00lbs / 680,39kg shells, 1916 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline, evenly spread
Aft Main mounts separated by engine room
2 - 13,50" / 343 mm guns (1x2 guns), 1 500,00lbs / 680,39kg shells, 1916 Model
Breech loading guns in a turret (on a barbette)
on centreline forward, all raised guns - superfiring
12 - 6,00" / 152 mm guns in single mounts, 100,00lbs / 45,36kg shells, 1916 Model
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 13 200 lbs / 5 987 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 110
4 - 20,0" / 508 mm submerged torpedo tubes
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 11,5" / 292 mm 450,00 ft / 137,16 m 16,00 ft / 4,88 m
Ends: 4,00" / 102 mm 290,00 ft / 88,39 m 12,00 ft / 3,66 m
Upper: 6,00" / 152 mm 450,00 ft / 137,16 m 8,00 ft / 2,44 m
Main Belt covers 94% of normal length
- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1,50" / 38 mm 450,00 ft / 137,16 m 45,50 ft / 13,87 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 13,0" / 330 mm 9,00" / 229 mm 10,0" / 254 mm
2nd: 13,0" / 330 mm 9,00" / 229 mm 12,0" / 305 mm
3rd: 4,00" / 102 mm - 1,00" / 25 mm
- Armour deck: 3,00" / 76 mm, Conning tower: 13,50" / 343 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 88 497 shp / 66 019 Kw = 27,00 kts
Range 8 000nm at 12,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3 146 tons
Complement:
1 230 - 1 600
Cost:
£4,388 million / $17,550 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1 392 tons, 4,2%
Armour: 11 825 tons, 35,6%
- Belts: 5 068 tons, 15,2%
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1 136 tons, 3,4%
- Armament: 2 421 tons, 7,3%
- Armour Deck: 2 899 tons, 8,7%
- Conning Tower: 301 tons, 0,9%
Machinery: 3 297 tons, 9,9%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 13 142 tons, 39,5%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3 245 tons, 9,8%
Miscellaneous weights: 350 tons, 1,1%
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
47 904 lbs / 21 729 Kg = 38,9 x 13,5 " / 343 mm shells or 8,4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,13
Metacentric height 6,5 ft / 2,0 m
Roll period: 16,8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,48
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,20
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0,541
Length to Beam Ratio: 7,25 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 27,20 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 47 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 58
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0,00 ft / 0,00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 30,00 ft / 9,14 m
- Forecastle (20%): 24,00 ft / 7,32 m
- Mid (41%): 24,00 ft / 7,32 m (16,00 ft / 4,88 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15%): 16,00 ft / 4,88 m
- Stern: 16,00 ft / 4,88 m
- Average freeboard: 19,76 ft / 6,02 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 84,0%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 150,3%
Waterplane Area: 52 235 Square feet or 4 853 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 111%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 186 lbs/sq ft or 909 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,98
- Longitudinal: 1,15
- Overall: 1,00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
shouldnt it be a Schlachtkreuzer instead of a Grosserkreuzer (remember my grasp on german is very very basic)
Quote from: Tanthalas on September 08, 2008, 12:46:22 PM
shouldnt it be a Schlachtkreuzer instead of a Grosserkreuzer (remember my grasp on german is very very basic)
All german battlecruisers were designated "large cruisers", it is only in translation that they become battlecruisers.
Which make it funny when people try and argue that USS Alska were not battlecruiser, but large cruisers... :)
Quote from: Korpen on September 08, 2008, 12:51:15 PM
Quote from: Tanthalas on September 08, 2008, 12:46:22 PM
shouldnt it be a Schlachtkreuzer instead of a Grosserkreuzer (remember my grasp on german is very very basic)
All german battlecruisers were designated "large cruisers", it is only in translation that they become battlecruisers.
Which make it funny when people try and argue that USS Alska were not battlecruiser, but large cruisers... :)
ahhhhh I didnt know that, did I get Battle Cruiser right in German though? (and I dont care what anyone else says the Alaskas were Battle Cruisers)
Yes, you got Schlachtkreuzer correctly :)
Borys
Can't trim her down by five metres, hey?
While the Germans used Gro3er Kreuzer, the Austrians decided to name their planned ships Schlachtkreuzer so the latter nomenclature is historically acceptable, especially for the Habsburg.
See http://www.viribusunitis.ca/predesigns.htm , last drawing.
The other difference in nomenclature is GTB vs Zerstörer. Also, there might be differences in how ranks are named.
I have a mix of OTL German and Austrian nomenclature.
At this point in time Schlachtkreuzer would indeed be more appropriate. Or maybe I will unleash the Grosskampfschiffe on you lot ... :)
Borys
Quote from: Borys on September 08, 2008, 10:28:23 PM
I have a mix of OTL German and Austrian nomenclature.
At this point in time Schlachtkreuzer would indeed be more appropriate. Or maybe I wil unleash Grosskampfschiffe on you lot ... :)
Borys
GAH it will take me like 20 minutes to figure out how to say that...
gross-kampf-shiffe
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on September 08, 2008, 06:42:05 PM
Can't trim her down by five metres, hey?
Yes, I'd have to.
Especially that I've got no Type 3 infrastructure anyway ...
Borys
Redesigned to fit Type 3 facilities.
20 ft shorter, MB now 12"
SMS Tiger, Habsburgs laid down 1916
Displacement:
30 048 t light; 31 546 t standard; 33 285 t normal; 34 676 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
720,00 ft / 720,00 ft x 102,00 ft x 29,00 ft (normal load)
219,46 m / 219,46 m x 31,09 m x 8,84 m
Armament:
6 - 13,50" / 343 mm guns (3x2 guns), 1 500,00lbs / 680,39kg shells, 1916 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline, evenly spread
Aft Main mounts separated by engine room
2 - 13,50" / 343 mm guns (1x2 guns), 1 500,00lbs / 680,39kg shells, 1916 Model
Breech loading guns in a turret (on a barbette)
on centreline forward, all raised guns - superfiring
12 - 6,00" / 152 mm guns in single mounts, 100,00lbs / 45,36kg shells, 1916 Model
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 13 200 lbs / 5 987 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 110
4 - 20,0" / 508 mm submerged torpedo tubes
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 12,0" / 305 mm 450,00 ft / 137,16 m 16,00 ft / 4,88 m
Ends: 4,00" / 102 mm 270,00 ft / 82,30 m 12,00 ft / 3,66 m
Upper: 6,00" / 152 mm 450,00 ft / 137,16 m 8,00 ft / 2,44 m
Main Belt covers 96% of normal length
- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1,50" / 38 mm 450,00 ft / 137,16 m 45,50 ft / 13,87 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 13,0" / 330 mm 9,00" / 229 mm 10,0" / 254 mm
2nd: 13,0" / 330 mm 9,00" / 229 mm 12,0" / 305 mm
3rd: 4,00" / 102 mm - 1,00" / 25 mm
- Armour deck: 3,00" / 76 mm, Conning tower: 13,50" / 343 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 89 695 shp / 66 912 Kw = 27,00 kts
Range 8 000nm at 12,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3 130 tons
Complement:
1 231 - 1 601
Cost:
£4,400 million / $17,601 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1 392 tons, 4,2%
Armour: 11 901 tons, 35,8%
- Belts: 5 178 tons, 15,6%
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1 136 tons, 3,4%
- Armament: 2 449 tons, 7,4%
- Armour Deck: 2 837 tons, 8,5%
- Conning Tower: 301 tons, 0,9%
Machinery: 3 342 tons, 10,0%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 13 064 tons, 39,2%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3 237 tons, 9,7%
Miscellaneous weights: 350 tons, 1,1%
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
47 818 lbs / 21 690 Kg = 38,9 x 13,5 " / 343 mm shells or 8,3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,12
Metacentric height 6,4 ft / 1,9 m
Roll period: 17,0 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,50
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,20
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0,547
Length to Beam Ratio: 7,06 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26,83 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 49 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 58
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0,00 ft / 0,00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 31,00 ft / 9,45 m
- Forecastle (20%): 24,00 ft / 7,32 m
- Mid (45%): 24,00 ft / 7,32 m (16,25 ft / 4,95 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15%): 16,25 ft / 4,95 m
- Stern: 16,25 ft / 4,95 m
- Average freeboard: 20,30 ft / 6,19 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 84,5%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 152,1%
Waterplane Area: 51 109 Square feet or 4 748 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 111%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 188 lbs/sq ft or 916 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,98
- Longitudinal: 1,26
- Overall: 1,00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
All I can say is that it has too much armor. Why are ships here so heavily armored, when despite all our battles we have yet to see a SINGLE battleship/cruiser be sunk due to armor?
Oh and BTW the Alaskas are not battlecruisers, the real battlecruisers are the Iowas! ;D *ducks behind nearest wall* Unfortunately someone put to much armor on those ships. :P
Quote from: Desertfox on September 09, 2008, 12:49:34 AM
All I can say is that it has too much armor. Why are ships here so heavily armored, when despite all our battles we have yet to see a SINGLE battleship/cruiser be sunk due to armor?
Maybe THAT is the reason ....
Borys
just be glad I didnt come up with the Iowas LOL 2 more inches armor 2 knots slower ^.^
Except for the fact that the ships that have seen battle have NOT been the most heavily armored...
In the Balkan War the battleships had 11", 11.8", 12" and 13" mainbelts. What do you view as being heavily armored?
Michael
Friedrich der Grosse and Antares went down due to gunfire, so that's two I can think of.
The Swiss ships (which I'm more familiar with) saw quite a bit of combat and most of them were not heavily armored.
FG was grossly overmatched, and I think she also took a torpedo. Antares was a heavy cruiser with a 7" belt and she ran into the entire Dutch battleline.Armor was irrelevant in the loss of either of the two ships. Constitution (9" belt) has collected quite a bit of hits in two wars (20+ <12" in 1stPW) (13 12" in 2ndPW). Strangely it was the ships with the heaviest armor who came closest to blowing up (Dutch BB, 14"+ armor), (Scharnhorts, 11.8" armor).
EDIT: I just thought of something, its ironic that the Germans who came closest to having one of their ships blow up are the ones going the less armor, more speed route. While the Swiss, whose armor worked just fine are going the less speed, more armor route!
Quote from: Desertfox on September 09, 2008, 05:16:08 PM
The Swiss ships (which I'm more familiar with) saw quite a bit of combat and most of them were not heavily armored.
FG was grossly overmatched, and I think she also took a torpedo. Antares was a heavy cruiser with a 7" belt and she ran into the entire Dutch battleline.Armor was irrelevant in the loss of either of the two ships. Constitution (9" belt) has collected quite a bit of hits in two wars (20+ <12" in 1stPW) (13 12" in 2ndPW). Strangely it was the ships with the heaviest armor who came closest to blowing up (Dutch BB, 14"+ armor), (Scharnhorts, 11.8" armor).
EDIT: I just thought of something, its ironic that the Germans who came closest to having one of their ships blow up are the ones going the less armor, more speed route. While the Swiss, whose armor worked just fine are going the less speed, more armor route!
The only Dutch ship that was ever in any risk of blowing up was Flandern, and she was far from the most heavily armoured. But that is beside the point.
I think you analysis I lacking one important point, what were the swiss ships shot at with?
For most of the war the Netherlands had only six 30cm guns at sea, and they were not of the most modern type. Most of the guns carried by Dutch ships were 21 (old) or 24cm guns, and they were not using caped shells. This allowed swiss medium armour to function quite well.
Compare that to five years later and six 30cm guns have become 24 in addition to 22 35cm guns...
What is "heavy" armour will always be relative what for of firepower ships carry, if 24cm guns is standard then 20cm armour would be quite heavy.
The Netherlands is not so much reducing armour as increasing firepower... :)
Constitution and Alliance (both 9" armor) faced Scharnhorts (12" guns) and P.D. (13" guns), both of them having modern guns.
Korpen: as an addendum, the DKB was also using 24 cm guns on the battleships it lost in fleet actions.
Foxy, your argument is somewhat circular. Both sides in 1PW, and the Swiss side in 2PW, was heavily skewed towards mass torpedo attack; it is no surprise, then, that torpedoes were partly or wholly responsible for the loss of many of the ships those navies sunk.
Paderborn-Delbruck had 13"/35 caliber guns: not at all modern.
Scharnhorst did not sink C&A, but she did decisively defeat them, despite being outgunned and outmassed by the two of them. Had there been a second comparable ship alongside Scharnhorst, I think both Swiss ships would have been sunk.
Just as new capital ships account for increased torpedo lethality with better stability reserves, torpedo bulkheads and (for the most part) heavier secondary batteries, they must also account for the much heavier, longer-ranged, and more accurate capital ship batteries through heavier armor protection and better escorts.